On Everyday Resistance: Shane Burley Interviews Kevin Van Meter

Shane Bur­ley: Let’s begin with the con­cept of “every­day resis­tance,” which is the focus of your new book, Guer­ril­las of Desire. What does it mean and what lin­eages does it draw from?

Kevin Van Meter: Every­day resis­tance is sim­ply one way of fram­ing acts that take place out­side the offi­cial orga­ni­za­tions of the Left (unions, polit­i­cal par­ties, non­prof­it orga­ni­za­tions, pro­gres­sive reli­gious groups, foun­da­tions, etc.) and the gaze of the state; acknowl­edg­ing that there are whole ways of life that exist beyond these orga­ni­za­tion­al forms, entire ways of life that express work­ing-class or rev­o­lu­tion­ary poten­tial and pow­er. Some have referred to this as “the com­mons” or “com­mon­ing.” Auton­o­mist Marx­ists call it “self-activ­i­ty” or “self-val­oriza­tion.” Anar­chists iden­ti­fy this as “mutu­al aid.” So, dif­fer­ent rev­o­lu­tion­ary tra­di­tions have looked at these ways of life and come up with dif­fer­ent phras­ing, dif­fer­ent meth­ods of con­cep­tu­al­iz­ing how this type of activ­i­ty func­tions. And while I pre­dom­i­nate­ly work with­in the auton­o­mist tra­di­tion, I draw upon oth­ers as well.

All of life does not take place in the fam­i­ly, where peo­ple work, dur­ing leisure hours, or in for­mal­ized orga­ni­za­tion­al forums. In fact, there’s a sur­plus, there’s some­thing of greater sub­stance there. As rev­o­lu­tion­ar­ies, we’re always try­ing to under­stand what that sub­stance is. What pre­dates an orga­ni­za­tion? What kind of social rela­tion­ships pre­fig­ure it? Every­thing from church­es and bowl­ing leagues to unions and rev­o­lu­tion­ary orga­ni­za­tions have evolved out of ear­li­er forms of activ­i­ty. So, what is this activ­i­ty? Every­day resis­tance is just anoth­er way of express­ing this activ­i­ty and quan­ti­fy­ing these ways of life that exist out­side of offi­cial chan­nels. Every­day acts and meth­ods of sur­vival actu­al­ly prop-up and fur­ther devel­op all forms of orga­ni­za­tion; self-activ­i­ty makes orga­niz­ing and orga­ni­za­tion pos­si­ble.

Every­day resis­tance is the term I have cho­sen because it gives us a cat­e­go­ry for this behav­ior and activ­i­ty. Then we can talk about overt rebel­lion, which is some­thing dif­fer­ent, and which includes armed upris­ings, rev­o­lu­tion­ary par­ties, unions, col­lec­tives, etc. Start­ing in the late 1940s and ear­ly 1950s — espe­cial­ly in Detroit around fig­ures such as Trinida­di­an Marx­ist C.L.R. James, Chi­nese-Amer­i­can lumi­nary Grace Lee Bog­gs, slave his­to­ri­an George Raw­ick, for­mer auto-work­er and mil­i­tant Mar­tin Glaber­man — work­ing-class ini­tia­tives were tak­ing place out­side of, and some­times against, the offi­cial struc­tures of the labor union. After a union con­tract was signed in a Detroit auto fac­to­ry, the union would dis­ci­pline the work­force to meet the con­di­tions of the con­tract. As a result, there would be job actions against the union or job actions to get around the lim­i­ta­tions of the union con­tract. Let’s be hon­est that these unions, the IWW aside, were dom­i­nat­ed by white, skilled, male work­ers and exclud­ed most oth­er work­ers and their expe­ri­ences. To chal­lenge these exclu­sions, this group of Detroit-based rev­o­lu­tion­ary the­o­rists start­ed to iden­ti­fy every­day and autonomous forms of activ­i­ty, from wild­cat strikes to work stop­pages, which they referred to as “work­ing-class self-activ­i­ty.”

In 1947 a pam­phlet titled The Amer­i­can Work­er was co-writ­ten by Grace Lee Bog­gs, under her “par­ty name” Rita Stone, and Paul Romano, an auto-work­er whose name is actu­al­ly Phil Singer. This pam­phlet looked at these forms of life that were tak­ing place in the fac­to­ry, forms of self-activ­i­ty that strength­en the union in some ways and in oth­ers try to get around its lim­i­ta­tions, as well as the dis­crim­i­na­tion tak­ing place with­in these unions. At the same time that this is being dis­cussed in Detroit, sim­i­lar if not iden­ti­cal find­ings are being devel­oped with­in a group called Social­ism or Bar­barism in France, and they both influ­enced the operaisti, the “work­erists,” or more broad­ly the “auton­o­mists,” a few years lat­er in Italy. The pam­phlet ends up in Italy and has a huge influ­ence on these ear­ly auton­o­mists, who begin ask­ing: “Ok, here’s this activ­i­ty. How do we start inquir­ing into, and under­stand­ing, this activ­i­ty?” As a result, they start devel­op­ing co-research meth­ods and sur­veys. They stood out­side of the auto plants, where the Catholic work­ers’ unions, the com­mu­nist par­ty, and the auton­o­mists would all be fly­er­ing. What the auton­o­mists were doing dif­fer­ent­ly was ask­ing the work­ers ques­tions and not just telling the work­ers what they need­ed to know. Ask­ing in the tra­di­tion of work­ers’ inquiry: “How is your shop orga­nized? Who has pow­er in your par­tic­u­lar sec­tor? What kinds of activ­i­ties are tak­ing place?”

SB: How then did these auton­o­mists relate to the orga­nized insti­tu­tions of the Left? How did they under­stand the rela­tion­ship between self-activ­i­ty and cap­i­tal­ism?

KVM: There are dif­fer­ent ques­tions that are being asked in the tra­di­tion of work­ers’ inquiry in Italy. Ini­tial­ly, these are folks with­in the Ital­ian Com­mu­nist Par­ty. Numer­ous mil­i­tants then leave the par­ty, under­stand­ing that the Com­mu­nist and Trot­sky­ist par­ties in the Unit­ed States and Italy are not expres­sions of work­ing-class self-activ­i­ty or are not for work­ing-class needs and desires, but are prob­lem­at­ic orga­ni­za­tion­al forms that lim­it the poten­tial of rev­o­lu­tion­ary strug­gle. As anti-cap­i­tal­ists inter­est­ed in work­ing-class strug­gle, they start to artic­u­late that self-activ­i­ty as the “revolt against work,” the “refusal of work.”

Ital­ian “work­erists” were par­tic­u­lar­ly inter­est­ed in fac­to­ry-based strug­gles, but lat­er you start­ed see­ing inter­est among stu­dents who were refus­ing the work required of them in order to become work­ers, refus­ing to devel­op their labor-pow­er for a job and a wage. And in response to the exclu­sion of women, fem­i­nists in the Wages for House­work cam­paign, such as Mari­arosa Dal­la Cos­ta and Sil­via Fed­eri­ci, start speak­ing about how the most impor­tant com­mod­i­ty for capitalism’s abil­i­ty to con­tin­ue to exist is labor-pow­er. There can be no mar­kets, no com­modi­ties with­out labor-pow­er, with­out the worker’s abil­i­ty to work. It’s a very spe­cial com­mod­i­ty; ener­gy is impor­tant, resource extrac­tion is impor­tant, but noth­ing is as impor­tant as labor-pow­er. What’s more, labor-pow­er is being repro­duced with­out a wage. So Dal­la Cos­ta and oth­ers start talk­ing about what the refusal of waged house­work might look like. They expand the def­i­n­i­tion of the work­er beyond the fac­to­ry gates, to include stu­dents, house­wives, peas­ants, slaves, and the unem­ployed, because work is not only imposed upon an indi­vid­ual by a boss in a fac­to­ry. Work is also imposed soci­ety-wide upon a pop­u­la­tion, because if you do not work then you can­not obtain a wage, and if you can­not obtain a wage then you can­not sur­vive. So work is imposed on var­i­ous dif­fer­ent lev­els and in var­i­ous dif­fer­ent ways.

In the 1970s we also start see­ing the Wel­fare Rights move­ment, an incred­i­bly impor­tant social move­ment that has received too lit­tle atten­tion in the Unit­ed States, which was led by women of col­or. The move­ment activists made demands for increased wel­fare pay­ments, for less sur­veil­lance of their fam­i­lies and their children’s lives. So, this was a demand for income sep­a­rate from work, because in fact there’s “nev­er enough work” for peo­ple look­ing for work. Although the impo­si­tion of work is cen­tral to cap­i­tal­ism, that doesn’t mean that every­one must work. To pro­duce com­modi­ties under cap­i­tal­ism, the cap­i­tal­ist needs a reserve army of labor­ers clam­or­ing for work, along with the threat of star­va­tion and death for those who refuse work, to be able to pull peo­ple off the unem­ploy­ment lines and into fac­to­ries, into cof­fee shops or oth­er places of work. And cap­i­tal­ism needs to be able to pay peo­ple only for the time they work for a wage.

Cap­i­tal­ism has gone through these var­i­ous stages and crises to address its insa­tiable desire for labor-pow­er and its des­per­ate need to impose work, con­stant­ly, every­where. Auton­o­mists are inter­est­ed in every­day resis­tance, mutu­al aid, and self-activ­i­ty. They are inter­est­ed in ways of life that take place out­side of the offi­cial orga­ni­za­tions of the Left because this is where the refusal of work is most pro­nounced.

SB: Now, I want to turn to your his­tor­i­cal exam­ples of slave and peas­ant resis­tance. How does “every­day resis­tance” account for peas­ant strug­gles, both in moder­ni­ty and in the ear­ly devel­op­ment of cap­i­tal­ism?

KVM: The French anthro­pol­o­gist Pierre Clas­tres left France in the 1960s and 1970s and went to the jun­gles of Paraguay, where he start­ed to see all these forms of life that exist­ed among so-called “prim­i­tive” peo­ples, with­in indige­nous soci­eties. These were not just soci­eties with­out a state, these were soci­eties that were designed to pre­vent state for­ma­tion, to pre­vent the kinds of pow­er rela­tion­ships that would be expressed as a state with its hier­ar­chi­cal rela­tion­ships. These are actu­al­ly soci­eties that had cre­at­ed mech­a­nisms that keep the state from form­ing. Clas­tres and oth­ers said, well, if we want to live in a soci­ety with­out this kind of polit­i­cal pow­er, with­out a state, then how do we actu­al­ly “gov­ern” our­selves in order to pre­vent state for­ma­tion? What mech­a­nisms exist in our soci­ety that pre­vent pow­er from accu­mu­lat­ing, that pre­vent wealth from accu­mu­lat­ing and being expressed as a state form? Or as a state appa­ra­tus with a police force, satel­lite white suprema­cist orga­ni­za­tions, and patri­ar­chal house­holds, all of these oth­er social ele­ments that the state requires to func­tion.

Fif­teen to twen­ty years lat­er, James Scott, an Amer­i­can anthro­pol­o­gist out of Yale, starts look­ing at prac­tices among the hill peo­ple of south­east Asia, and he argues that peas­ant pol­i­tics were less a part of what we might con­sid­er tra­di­tion­al polit­i­cal orga­niz­ing and more a part of every­day life. As Scott argues in Weapons of the Weak: “For­mal, orga­nized polit­i­cal activ­i­ty, even if clan­des­tine and rev­o­lu­tion­ary is typ­i­cal­ly the pre­serve of the mid­dle class­es and intel­li­gentsia. To look for peas­ant pol­i­tics in this realm is to look large­ly in vain.”1

What Scott saw is that the peas­ant hill peo­ples of south­east Asia were not nec­es­sar­i­ly inter­est­ed in form­ing unions or polit­i­cal par­ties, but every­day prac­tices allowed them to sur­vive and to resist par­tic­u­lar impo­si­tions of work, such as par­tic­u­lar agri­cul­tur­al regimes. Some­times they escaped and ran back to the hills to cre­ate their own peas­ant abodes, out­side of var­i­ous land tenure sys­tems of the state.

SB: This is of course sim­i­lar to slave resis­tance in the Unit­ed States and Amer­i­c­as. What role does slave resis­tance and rebel­lion play? How does this help us under­stand cap­i­tal­ism and work?

Van Meter: At the same time rad­i­cals are look­ing at the work­ing-class self-activ­i­ty in the fac­to­ries in Detroit, there’s a huge, bub­bling inter­est among black rev­o­lu­tion­ar­ies in slave resis­tance. Were slaves real­ly saved by the eman­ci­pa­tion procla­ma­tion? Because if slaves were docile and accept­ed slav­ery this could mean that black peo­ple are docile and accept­ing of white suprema­cy. This was the dom­i­nant image of the slave at the time; that slaves were docile, stu­pid, accept­ing of their con­di­tions. Maybe a few ran away, maybe they caused trou­ble occa­sion­al­ly, but they did not engage in active resis­tance against the slav­oc­ra­cy — this was the assump­tion. Mil­i­tants and schol­ars went back and looked at slave nar­ra­tives and found that slaves are con­stant­ly rebelling. That there was ongo­ing “slave guer­ril­la war­fare” tak­ing place.

Her­bert Apthek­er writes Amer­i­can Negro Slave Revolts and notices, by look­ing at his­tor­i­cal record, that there are peri­od­ic rebel­lions in var­i­ous clus­ters through­out the his­to­ry of slav­ery in the Unit­ed States. And these rebel­lions, as well as forms of every­day resis­tance, were inten­si­fy­ing in the years lead­ing up to the Civ­il War. It’s not only that clus­ters of slave rebel­lions were tak­ing place; there were mil­lions of slaves in the Unit­ed States, the Caribbean, and Cen­tral Amer­i­ca who were run­ning away, escap­ing, flee­ing, and cre­at­ing maroon com­mu­ni­ties. You see slave own­ers hav­ing to devel­op heav­ier axes and tools, because if a slave takes the axe, hits it against a rock and breaks it, they don’t have to work for the rest of the day. There was this phe­nom­e­non where every­one would be sick on Sat­ur­day and no one would be sick on Sun­day since Sun­day is the day slaves had off. Women would feign preg­nan­cy, say­ing that they were preg­nant so that they could get less work and more food rations. Even­tu­al­ly they’d be found out and pun­ished for such a thing, but the temp­ta­tion for more time, less impo­si­tion of work, was just too much.

Researchers start­ed dig­ging back even fur­ther to ask why African slaves were required in the first place. Going to anoth­er con­ti­nent and cap­tur­ing peo­ple, bring­ing them here to work is a mas­sive under­tak­ing, and 500 years ago it sure­ly seemed impos­si­ble. Why would cap­i­tal­ism require slav­ery? Because it couldn’t impose work on the indige­nous pop­u­la­tions of the world. Because when you cap­tured indige­nous folks in Brazil and the Unit­ed States and tried to force them to work, they would run away — and the advan­tage the indige­nous folks had over the col­o­niz­ers was their knowl­edge of the ter­rain. African slaves didn’t have that advan­tage because they were cap­tured on one con­ti­nent and then tak­en to anoth­er con­ti­nent, bru­tal­ized and sep­a­rat­ed from their fam­i­lies, maimed, tor­tured, and thrown onto a slave ship. Even on that ship they very often revolt­ed and some­times hurled them­selves over­board to drown, refus­ing the life of imposed work.

So the impo­si­tion of work is con­stant­ly being refused and resist­ed — by slaves and peas­ants but also by work­ers in fields, fac­to­ries, and work­shops, bed­rooms and kitchens, schools and pris­ons, and the innu­mer­able sites of pre­car­i­ous and tem­po­rary ser­vice work today. We’ve looked at peas­ant soci­eties, we’ve looked at fac­to­ries, we’ve looked at the home where house­wives are work­ing, and we’ve looked at slaves and indige­nous pop­u­la­tions — there is the con­stant refusal of work. The impo­si­tion of work is the impo­si­tion of a form of life, the impo­si­tion of a way of liv­ing where your entire life is con­vert­ed to labor-pow­er until you’re no longer need­ed or dead.

That is what cap­i­tal­ism is and that’s why Marx refers to cap­i­tal­ism as vam­pir­ic. It’s suck­ing the coop­er­a­tive life ener­gy of the sub­ject, of the peas­ant, of the work­er, of the house­wife, of the stu­dent. Suck­ing that coop­er­a­tive and cre­ative ener­gy out of them, suck­ing that life force, and leav­ing them with noth­ing but a pal­try wage at the end. Over the years I would hear very often that we need coop­er­a­tives, because we live in a com­pet­i­tive soci­ety and what we need is a coop­er­a­tive soci­ety. I think that’s a bunch of bull­shit, because cap­i­tal­ism actu­al­ly requires coop­er­a­tion — you need to coop­er­ate with your fel­low work­ers to do any­thing on the job. Cap­i­tal­ism uti­lizes the coop­er­a­tive ener­gy and cre­ativ­i­ty of human beings in the larg­er soci­ety. So auton­o­mists define cap­i­tal­ism as the end­less impo­si­tion of work and take great inter­est in every­day resis­tance, self-activ­i­ty, and all these oth­er ways that peo­ple are sur­viv­ing and orga­niz­ing under cap­i­tal­ism. But we also need to rec­og­nize that cap­i­tal­ism is espe­cial­ly insid­i­ous in that it doesn’t just steal our labor-pow­er, it steals our coop­er­a­tive and cre­ative capac­i­ties that could be used for some­thing else — for cre­at­ing a maroon com­mu­ni­ty, for steal­ing from a ware­house, or forg­ing a new soci­ety.

SB: Does that mean every­day resis­tance, or this incli­na­tion towards resis­tance, should be thought of as the core ele­ment of rev­o­lu­tion­ary strug­gle?

KVM: I am inter­est­ed in how coop­er­a­tive and autonomous ways of life are not just cap­tured by cap­i­tal­ism, but how they escape cap­i­tal­ist com­mand and allow peo­ple to sur­vive. When auton­o­mists say self-activ­i­ty, when we say every­day resis­tance, when we say mutu­al aid, when we say com­mon­ing, we are inter­est­ed in how coop­er­a­tive and autonomous ways of life can forge a new soci­ety beyond cap­i­tal­ism. Then the task of the rev­o­lu­tion­ary is to ask, what are our life activ­i­ties, how does cap­i­tal­ism cap­ture them, and how do we escape cap­i­tal­ism to cre­ate oth­er life ways and forms of resis­tance?

In the book, I argue that the foun­da­tion for all rev­o­lu­tion­ary pol­i­tics and social move­ments is every­day resis­tance. An orga­ni­za­tion, a coali­tion, a fed­er­a­tion only emerge out of these pri­or, ear­li­er forms of self-activ­i­ty. Peo­ple become rev­o­lu­tion­ar­ies because they become involved in these every­day prac­tices. And you don’t need to become a rev­o­lu­tion­ary to become involved in these every­day prac­tices; this is not a ques­tion of rev­o­lu­tion­ary con­scious­ness, this is a ques­tion about activ­i­ty and the com­po­si­tion of strug­gle.

We also can’t just judge these prac­tices on their own. Forms of resis­tance are not always good. When white work­ers would strike against the inclu­sion of black work­ers or women in the fac­to­ry, that’s a form of resis­tance, but that’s not nec­es­sar­i­ly one we want to hon­or. So, I argue that every­day resis­tance itself is impor­tant, it is some­thing we should real­ly pay atten­tion to, and it’s a fac­tor in rev­o­lu­tion­ary strug­gle and rev­o­lu­tion­ary upheaval — but it’s not the only fac­tor we have to con­sid­er. We should con­sid­er oth­er fac­tors: of exploita­tion and oppres­sion, of dom­i­na­tion and con­trol.

The ques­tion we need to answer as rev­o­lu­tion­ar­ies attuned to every­day resis­tance, mutu­al aid, and self-activ­i­ty is this: how does every­day resis­tance express the desires of those who are exploit­ed and oppressed, dom­i­nat­ed and con­trolled by cap­i­tal­ism and the state? And this ques­tion can­not be answered abstract­ly, out­side of the spe­cif­ic con­text in which you are inquir­ing and oper­at­ing. I want­ed to make sure to not just add every­day resis­tance to the hodge­podge that is con­tem­po­rary rev­o­lu­tion­ary the­o­ry. What I attempt­ed to do in the book is to use every­day resis­tance as a cat­a­lyst to recon­sid­er and rethink the­o­ry and orga­niz­ing, because while I see every­day resis­tance is an impor­tant fac­tor in rev­o­lu­tion­ary strug­gles, there are all these oth­er fac­tors that we should be con­stant­ly recon­sid­er­ing.

SB: Guer­ril­las of Desire sets up the premise that every­thing we know about orga­niz­ing is wrong. How can “every­day resis­tance” inform orga­niz­ing and what can we do to take today’s move­ments in a new rev­o­lu­tion­ary direc­tion?

KVM: Let me be as clear and con­cise as pos­si­ble. In the intro­duc­tion to the book, I write: “Guer­ril­las of Desire offers a con­tentious hypoth­e­sis: the fun­da­men­tal assump­tion under­ly­ing Left and rad­i­cal orga­niz­ing, includ­ing many strains of anar­chism, is wrong. I do not mean orga­ni­za­tion­al­ly dis­hon­est, ide­o­log­i­cal­ly inap­pro­pri­ate, or immoral. I mean empir­i­cal­ly incor­rect. His­tor­i­cal and cur­rent strate­gies on the Left and in rad­i­cal move­ments are pred­i­cat­ed on the assump­tion that work­ing class and poor peo­ple are unor­ga­nized and not resist­ing. Hence the role of the activist, orga­niz­er, and insur­rec­tion­ist is to acti­vate, orga­nize, and edu­cate a dis­en­gaged pop­u­la­tion through var­i­ous ini­tia­tives. Illus­trat­ing that every­day resis­tance is a fac­tor in rev­o­lu­tion and a form of pol­i­tics, main­tain­ing that its effects on overt rebel­lion and crises are mea­sur­able, requires the rever­sal of this assump­tion. Work­ing class and poor people — as slaves, peas­ants, and work­ers in the indus­tri­al and social factory — are already orga­nized and resist­ing.”

So, while this address­es your ques­tion about how every­day resis­tance chal­lenges our premis­es around orga­niz­ing, it doesn’t ful­ly tack­le the ques­tion of how every­day resis­tance informs orga­niz­ing. In effect, I am sug­gest­ing that if we are to be attuned to every­day resis­tance, mutu­al aid, and work­ing class self-activ­i­ty, we need three things: a new type of orga­niz­er; mech­a­nisms that orga­niz­ers uti­lize to “record, cir­cu­late, ampli­fy, and inter­vene into the new soci­ety as it emerges”; and a con­stel­la­tion of rev­o­lu­tion­ary and “sur­vival pend­ing rev­o­lu­tion” ini­tia­tives that express the actu­al­ly exist­ing needs and desires of the work­ing class in strug­gle. What is more, because every­day resis­tance is express­ly con­tex­tu­al, our mech­a­nisms and ini­tia­tives will be par­tic­u­lar to the con­texts they are oper­at­ing with­in. Now, I think answer­ing the ques­tion of what direc­tion rev­o­lu­tion­ary move­ments should go in, is always dif­fi­cult, and pos­si­bly one we shouldn’t ask in the abstract. Rather, I am inter­est­ed in ask­ing, how do orga­niz­ers, rev­o­lu­tion­ary orga­ni­za­tions, and move­ments emerge? In this sense, we are not look­ing from the point of view of the orga­ni­za­tion on up to coali­tions, fed­er­a­tions, gen­er­al strikes or rev­o­lu­tion­ary upheavals, but look­ing in the oppo­site direc­tion — from the orga­ni­za­tion “all the way down.” This results in a dif­fer­ent set of ques­tions being asked.

For the sake of pre­ci­sion, let me read from the chap­ter on orga­niz­ing: “What are the inte­gral ele­ments of an orga­ni­za­tion? Where are its pre­cur­sors? Who told the hal­lowed sto­ries that pre­date its for­ma­tion? What expe­ri­ences and encoun­ters has the orga­niz­er emerged from? Where have these been record­ed, and how can those of us act­ing in com­mon ampli­fy, cir­cu­late, and prop­a­gate these expe­ri­ences and expres­sions? What are the con­stituent ele­ments, forces, rela­tion­ships, mate­ri­als, needs, and desires that came togeth­er and allowed this orga­ni­za­tion to emerge? A response to these queries would require mil­i­tants to inves­ti­gate the con­stituent ele­ments, forces, rela­tion­ships, mate­ri­als, needs, and desires that could emerge and are in fact emerg­ing. Becom­ing attuned to the tax­on­o­my of strug­gle, to every­day resis­tance in this man­ner, in turn requires a new type of orga­niz­er.” And it’s going to be up to the read­er of this inter­view and the book, if they find what I am say­ing at all inter­est­ing or use­ful of course, to fig­ure out what kind of orga­niz­er is need­ed in their own con­text.


Originally published at www.viewpointmag.com on September 14, 2017.